why "following the science" isn't obvious

The government and the left would like you to believe that the so-called "vaccine" is a necessity, and since science is now utterly a handmaiden of the left, many "studies" have come out showing the efficacy of the "vaccine." (These days, I prefer to say jab or injection or inoculation or shot.) But evidence continues to mount that the jab can be harmful and has, in fact, caused thousands of deaths while leaving countless other patients with cardiac and neurological problems. Then, there's the news that the jab can actually rewrite the genes of your liver. Your liver, when it doesn't work, is the source of a whole host of human problems, so this isn't good news. And while various studies have shown that the jab is actively harmful for many, this news gets suppressed by the mainstream media to preserve The Narrative. Well, no less a source than The New England Journal of Medicine has come out with a new study saying the injection actually increases the risk of infection by COVID.

Several recent studies have indicated the Covid-19 vaccines actually increase the risk of contracting the disease over time, but these studies have been ignored or even debunked by corporate media and Big Pharma for months. Now, they’ll have to contend with a new study published in the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine.

This study was huge in scale, sifting through data collected from over 100,000 people infected by the Omicron variant. It lends credibility to the statistical significance of the findings, which are absolutely startling. Here are the key points: Those who have been “fully vaccinated” with two shots from Moderna or Pfizer are more likely to contract Covid-19 than those who have not been vaccinated at all.

Booster shots offer protection approximately equal to natural immunity, but the benefits wane after 2-5 months.

Natural immunity lasts for at least 300-days, which is the length of the study; it likely lasts much longer.

This jibes with the current narrative coming from Big Pharma and their minions in government and corporate media that the jabs are supposed to mitigate the effects. But even that claim has been called into question as recent studies indicate the vaccinated may be dying even more than the unvaccinated.

When you look up comparisons of death rates between the jabbed and the unjabbed, you normally find only data supporting The Narrative. Some examples: (1) this Scientific American article says the unvaccinated get infected and die at a much higher rate than do the vaccinated; (2) this CDC paper argues much the same. But there are cracks in The Narrative, now, and they can no longer be hidden. Meanwhile, the case for natural immunity continues to strengthen. It won't be until after the pandemic is declared over that people will quietly admit what some of us have known all along: the vaccine is essentially worthless.

To be fair, if the right is going to use mortality stats to argue that COVID isn't all that deadly, then stats can be used to argue that, while the jab might not be effective, it's not necessarily deadly. As I wrote elsewhere:

if we think rationally—statistically—then there are thousands of cases of injection-related deaths at this point, but over a billion people have been jabbed. Odds are that the jab won’t kill you (it hasn’t killed anyone I personally know), but I want nothing to do with what is essentially gene therapy, not a standard vaccine.